To Our Readers
Settlement Report | Vol. 18 No. 2 | February-March 2008By Philip C. Wilcox, Jr.
- Olmert and Settlements: Lofty Goals Betrayed by Actions on the Ground
- Lying to Oneself
- To Our Readers
- Rice Testifies at FOROPS Subcommittee
- Containing Palestinian Neighborhoods in and Around Jerusalem's Old City - 2008
- Settlement Time Line
- Short Takes
- Back Panel Quote
- Map: Containing Palestinian Neighborhoods in and Around Jerusalem's Old City - 2008
- Statistics: Settlement Construction
Israel achieved extraordinary success in its early decades. Today, it is in deep trouble because of its fateful decision after conquering the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza in 1967 to occupy, settle, and control these areas. As Geoffrey Aronson points out in this Report, for more than four decades Israeli governments have pursued this policy, withdrawing only from Gaza settlements, while proclaiming that they seek peace. Given the determination of the Palestinians for sovereignty in a real state of their own, their looming demographic advantage, and their proven capacity to inflict terror in the absence of a credible diplomatic process for an agreed territorial division, a policy of permanent occupation cannot succeed.
At best, Israel now offers the Palestinians a truncated statelet and no part of Jerusalem. At worst, it would cede only fragmented, scattered West Bank enclaves. Either option forecloses a viable Palestinian state and promises periodic violent Palestinian rebellion. Israeli leaders’ claims that security needs compel them to act unilaterally and that Palestinians have not shown that they can be trusted often conceal a higher priority: continued control and settlement of the land.
The lack of realism in this policy is remarkable. Israel’s creation was the product of the unique and tragic suffering of the Jewish people for almost two millennia. But today, Israel is still subject to the constraints of nationhood that states ignore at their peril. Israel’s settlement policy is a product of dysfunctional politics made worse by a pathology of denial and an excessive trust in force. No less important, Israel’s policy persists because the indulgent protection of the United States has enabled it to avoid adopting the realistic policies that it needs to protect its long term security and its identity as a Jewish, democratic state.
At best, Israel now offers the Palestinians a truncated statelet and no part of Jerusalem. At worst, it would cede only fragmented, scattered West Bank enclaves. Either option forecloses a viable Palestinian state and promises periodic violent Palestinian rebellion. Israeli leaders’ claims that security needs compel them to act unilaterally and that Palestinians have not shown that they can be trusted often conceal a higher priority: continued control and settlement of the land.
The lack of realism in this policy is remarkable. Israel’s creation was the product of the unique and tragic suffering of the Jewish people for almost two millennia. But today, Israel is still subject to the constraints of nationhood that states ignore at their peril. Israel’s settlement policy is a product of dysfunctional politics made worse by a pathology of denial and an excessive trust in force. No less important, Israel’s policy persists because the indulgent protection of the United States has enabled it to avoid adopting the realistic policies that it needs to protect its long term security and its identity as a Jewish, democratic state.
| Previous Article | Next Article |